FTC Supports Federal Self-Driving Vehicles Policy, But Cites Need for Privacy
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's voluntary policy to help guide the development of self-driving vehicles is a "significant step forward" that will make "innovative uses of information," but carmakers should "ensure consumer privacy protections are built in from the start," wrote Jessica Rich, director of the FTC Consumer Protection Bureau, in comments filed to NHTSA. The FTC's are among more than 1,000 views submitted by Tuesday's deadline for comments on NHTSA's autonomous car guidelines released in September (see 1609200039 and 1609160038).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
"Information collection, transmission, storage, and analysis are integral to realizing a vision of vehicles that are significantly safer and more efficient than the cars we drive today," wrote Rich. "It is appropriate that the Policy Report, in addition to emphasizing vehicle safety, includes recommendations designed to ensure that privacy and security issues are considered throughout the vehicle lifecycle, particularly in the design phase." She said the guidelines do a good job of outlining the need for sharing non-personally identifiable information or requiring user consent to help enhance vehicle safety and boost consumer confidence in such technologies.
Rich said NHTSA should be commended for encouraging carmakers to comply with the FTC privacy guidance and the Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights based on the Fair Information Practice Principles such as choice, respect for context and data security. She said the transparency principles require carmakers to have public-facing privacy policies that permit FTC enforcement action against these companies when they violate such policies. She commended the transportation safety agency for its cybersecurity recommendations and industry information sharing to help companies identify and mitigate threats. Rich said she supported NHTSA's "thoughtful consideration" of issues presented by emerging technologies as well as a "strong commitment" to privacy and cybersecurity.
Venable attorney David Strickland, who represents the Self Driving Coalition for Safer Streets, with members including Ford, Google, Lyft, Uber and Volvo (see 1604260072), said the policy reflects a major shift toward highly automated vehicles but clarification is needed in certain areas. The former NHTSA administrator said the coalition wants the agency to "affirmatively discourage" states from creating a patchwork of laws and regulations that may hinder industry. The coalition is urging the agency to pursue narrow rulemakings to amend current safety standards and allow for fully self-driving cars without a human operator for the highest levels of self-driving cars (Levels 4 and 5). It wants Congress to enact a law that would allow makers to rapidly deploy self-driving cars, he added.
Ryan Hagemann, Niskanen Center technology and civil liberties policy analyst, who also submitted comments, said in a Tuesday blog post that his organization had some concerns. "The agency’s call for pre-market approval authority is especially troubling, as the likely result will be additional weeks, months, or possibly years of delay," he wrote. Other concerns include NHTSA's proposed certification process that will add costs and delay rollout of self-driving cars and the "insinuation" that the agency can regulate post-sale software updates. "We disagree," wrote Hagemann. "Nowhere in these policy guidelines does the agency cite statutory authority for these supposedly existent powers."
Anthony Levandowski, vice president-engineering at Uber, which is testing self-driving cars in Pittsburgh (see 1609070018), said the company supports NHTSA's efforts but fears the policy "creates unnecessary barriers." He cited the need for a different approach to regulating self-driving software. The current "approach treats this software as one would a rigid product with infrequent (if any) changes, instead of a constantly evolving technology," he said. "Instead of establishing a burdensome oversight process, the agency’s focus should be on defining outcomes and testing for achievement of those outcomes -- and allowing companies to innovate different ways of achieving them."
Other commenters included bicycle and motorcycle enthusiasts concerned about their safety, state government officials on their authority over regulating such technologies and the voluntary nature of the guidance, and insurers on the issue of coverage of such vehicles. Many seemed to support the guidelines but warned safety shouldn't be compromised and regulations shouldn't unduly hinder innovation.